Search results
2 results
Sort by:
Solar Lease Negotiations from the Landowner's Perspective
In examining the evolution of oil and gas leases and related energy industry agreements in the recorded public records, it is interesting to observe when certain clauses begin to appear and how they develop with the passage of time as additional agreements are drafted. These modifications almost always emerge to address concerns that were not apparent to the parties during the early days of the particular industry, but eventually became problematic as basic forms were applied in practice. In this context, necessity remains the mother of invention. In the same manner, it is anticipated that solar lease drafting practices will evolve to address lessons learned by landowners and lessees as a result of the first wave of widespread solar development in Texas. In the meantime, attorneys that represent landowners must anticipate potential problems by employing a creative approach that considers various hypothetical scenarios and outcomes for each unique client and tract of land. This requires a high degree of situational awareness and attention to detail, in addition to a base knowledge of how solar power is generated, stored, transported and marketed.
NO ASSUMPTION BY BUYER ENTITY OF SELLER ENTITY’S IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY LIABILITY––WHETHER AN ENTITY THAT PURCHASES A MANUFACTURER’S ASSETS ASSUMES OR AGREES TO ASSUME AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY THAT ATTACHED AND WAS NOT DISCLAIMED WHEN THE MANUFACTURER SOLD THE GOOD.
The Court in Northland Industries v Kouba held that that the Buyer only assumed liabilities expressed in the Agreement. The record reflects no evidence to support that the Buyer agreed to assume the Seller’s implied warranty of merchantability. Thus, the Buyer will not be liable for beach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the Agreement failed to show that the Buyer agreed to take on such liability.